Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499951 arthurguru <arthurg.work@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |arthurg.work@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from arthurguru <arthurg.work@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-11 20:35:40 EDT --- Hi Patrick, Here is my informal review of package netdiscover MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. - netdiscover-0.3-1.20090503cvs.fc10.src.rpm OK - netdiscover-0.3-1.20090503cvs.fc7.i386.rpm OK - netdiscover-debuginfo-0.3-1.20090503cvs.fc7.i386.rpm OK - OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} - OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines - DistTag doc says append to the end for the simple example used. - Release: 1.20090503cvs%{?dist} - OK Note for more experienced reviewers Potential for {?dist} being mixed with an {?alphatag} suffix, I’ve seen a format being used similar to this Release: 1%{?dist}.20090503cvs Maybe an extra snapshot example in NamingGuidelines would clear this up. MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - OK, GPLv3 MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - OK MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc - file "COPYING" which contains the license is not listed in %doc - Not OK, MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source - a0c8fe2025547528aa47d10ac8217282 *netdiscover-0.3-20090503cvs.tar.gz (RPM) - a0c8fe2025547528aa47d10ac8217282 *netdiscover.tar.gz (upstream) - OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - OK, i386 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture - OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - OK, no locales available MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - OK, no shared libraries. MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. - OK, no relocatable package MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. - OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. - OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. - OK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. - OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - OK, no large documentation MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. - OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - OK, no header files MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - OK, no static libraries MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). - OK, no .pc files MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. - OK, no library files. MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK, not a -devel package. MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - OK, no .la files MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file - OK, no gui available MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. - OK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - OK Conclusion: License file included in source but not specified in %doc Concern over %{dist} tag location when using snapshot release Kind regards, Arthur Gouros. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review